Category Archives: GI2025

Executive Orders 1100 (revised) and 1110: What’s happened and where things stand

I just noticed that I haven’t posted anything since the October Senate meeting. My apologies for the silence. Things were moving quickly and a lot was happening behind the scenes. Thus let me provide a brief recap of what’s happened concerning Executive Orders 1100 (revised) and 1110. I’ll start with where we are now. For those who are interested, I’ll then rewind back to the October Senate and November Board of Trustees meetings.

Where we are now

EO1100 The Chancellor relented on the elimination of CSUN’s Section F. Here is the letter from EVC Blanchard to President Harrison setting out the terms of the extension:  17-11-21 LJB to Harrison EO 1100 Response v3 . Basically, we have to make some administrative changes to how Section F courses are coded for transfers to other campuses and formalize what we were already doing to ensure we do not violate state law by requiring transfer students to take more units than students who enter as freshmen.

The Chancellor’s Office still expects CSUN to comply with the rest of the revisions to EO1100. The two major issues are requiring students to take 3 units of upper division B (natural sciences) and the loss of upper division section E (lifelong learning). Both sets of changes involve a lot of enrollment (IIRC, there are ~1,500 / year FTES in upper division E; many more will need classes which do not yet exist in upper division B). While the requirements are supposed to be in place by Fall 18, the changes in enrollment patterns will phase in over a few years since they only concern upper-division GE. The Senate decided not to reconsider the decision not to participate in the implementation of the Executive Orders. Thus any of these required changes to our GE program could not be carried out through the normal curricular review process. President Harrison has created a task force of faculty, staff, and students to make recommendations to her on the necessary policy changes.

EO1110 The Chancellor’s Office still expects CSUN to implement the changes mandated by EO1110 (to developmental math and writing) on the original timeline. While that recklessly hasty timeline is likely to cause significant problems on other campuses, CSUN’s faculty had already been undertaking improvements to these programs before the order was issued. The fact that they now coincide with mandated changes in the EO cannot be a reason for preventing these faculty-originated curricular improvements from proceeding through the regular curricular processes. Thus it is likely that we will be compliant with EO1110 on the requisite timeline without ever formally taking action to implement the executive order.

That’s where we are now. Here’s some of what’s happened since my last blog post.

October Senate meeting

The Faculty Senate meeting on 26th October was attended by several hundred students and faculty who passionately demonstrated in support of Section F and urged the Senate not to reconsider its decision not to participate in implementation. If you’re wondering how that many people fit in the usual library basement room, they didn’t: After conversations with the police chief the night before about the unprecedented size of the student protests in the week leading up to the meeting, I decided to move the meeting from the library to the Northridge Center —the largest available venue on campus. I don’t know of any official estimate of the attendance, but the main room was full and the balcony was ~50% occupied. We were also joined by Chris Miller, Chair of the ASCSU.

At the beginning of the meeting, President Harrison announced that Chancellor White had, at the last minute, agreed to allow CSUN to keep section F. After a long and impassioned session of public comment, the Senate voted not to reconsider its decision to not participate in implementation. The Senate then passed this resolution which sets out our grounds for this refusal.

Board of Trustees meeting

Several CSUN faculty members along with several dedicated students traveled to Long Beach for the November Board of Trustees meeting. While they were allowed only a few minutes during the public comment sessions, they were nonetheless forceful advocates for CSUN’s students and values. We should all be proud to have them as colleagues and students.

Here are some of the relevant portions of the meetings:

During the public comment section at the beginning of the Committee on Educational Policy, here are Rosa RiVera-Furumoto (Chicana/o Studies) and Gina Masequesmay (Asian American Studies), Kate Stevenson (Developmental math), and Jennifer Eagan (CFA President and CSUEB Philosophy Professor).

This video also includes a report on the Graduation Initiative which includes a small section on the Executive Orders (designed to technically fulfill the request for discussion of the EOs introduced by now Trustee Emeritus Stepanek at the last meeting)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KOKTdz5EZs&t=2h07m53s . The questions by the BOT begin at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KOKTdz5EZs&t=2h31m40s and include the Chancellor’s Office’s response to CSUN’s Senate actions.

At the plenary session on the second day of the BOT meeting, here are comments by former ASCSU Chair Steven Filing (Accounting at CSU Stanislaus) and our own Brian Burkhart (American Indian Studies) followed by several CSUN students interspersed among other speakers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8uoGne2XtU&t=7m0s .

Finally, here is ASCSU Chair Miller’s report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8uoGne2XtU&t=59m08s. Without taking anything away from any of our faculty, administrators, and students’ efforts, I believe her report was crucial in getting the Trustees to take our concerns seriously and put pressure on the CO rather than reflexively defending its actions. (Rhetorical strategy connoisseur’s tasting note:  The smackdown she delivers is crisp, refined, and absolutely delicious.)

 

Executive orders materials roundup (now with notes on the Senate agenda)

Here’s the agenda for the Senate meeting: senateagenda102617

Here’s an explanatory note of what’s going to happen: Senate agenda explanation

Here’s a companion flowchart:  Flowchart of agenda

In advance of the upcoming Senate meeting, here are many of the relevant documents in one place:

Abbreviations

CO = Chancellor’s Office

BOT = Board of Trustees

Executive orders, coded memos, and letters

EO1100R

EO1110

LJB to Presidents – Presidents EO 1100R EO 1110 Implementation

The CO has decided to allow limited delays in implementation of EO1100R, but not EO1110. As anticipated, campuses need to submit implementation plans and timelines to receive extensions.

The Placement of Students Based on Their Academic Preparation

This describes the first steps for how the multiple-measures based placement will work.

Clarifying Law and Consultation

This is an email from the EVC to Chair Miller in which he defends the CO’s right to impose GE policy. It was issued largely response to my question to him at the plenary about what to tell my Faculty about the consequences of refusing to comply. Professor Hellenbrand responds to the EVC’s memo in Rights of the senate under CA law: an opinion

CSUN actions

Approved EPC charge to EO1100R task force

Non-participation resolution (from September Senate meeting)

Associated Students resolution

Ethnic studies (et al) letter

‘Consultation’ on draft executive orders and responses

LJB to Pres Request for EO 1100 Feedback

CSU Math council response to ASA-2017-14

2017-06-15 Letter to EVCAA Concerning proposed changes to developmental education SIGNED

Memo on consultation over EOs from EVC

There was some consultation on the EOs. Most faculty believe that it was grossly inadequate consultation. The above memo summarizes some of what occurred. (It may make more sense against the background of Chair Miller’s reports).

 

Ethnic Studies Task Force

This is the final report of the task force convened by Chancellor White to review issues surrounding ethnic studies programs in the CSU

Ethnic Studies Task Force report

Quantitative Reasoning Task Force

The CSU convened a task force to make recommendations on quantitative reasoning education. The report has been cited by the CO to support some of the changes in the Executive Orders.

QRTF report

Blanchard to Miller QR in EO 1100 (1)

This is a letter from EVC Blanchard explaining how the report informed the EOs.

QRTF co-chairs response

This is a response by the co-chairs of the quantitative reasoning task force to the EVC’s letter. They charge that the QRTF report is being misused.

Other CSU campus senate responses

It is clear that EO1100R affects CSUN disproportionately (2 campus have a different problem in that their GE was built around 4 unit courses which the EO requires to be 3 units). Other Senates are upset about the egregious violations of process. No other campus is considering non-compliance. Here are the resolutions which have passed so far:

Campus resolutions

Professor (nee Provost) Hellenbrand’s comments

Rights of the senate under CA law: an opinion

To Hell in a Handbasket: GE and other fiascos

Courses and pathways in the new ge: issues and questions

Statewide Senate and CO responses

ASCSU resolution

CSUCO Responses to ASCSU September 2017

Chair Miller’s presentation to Board of Trustees

Systemwide reports

Faculty Trustee reports

ASCSU Chair reports

Miscellany

The Transfer Maze, The High Cost to Students and the State of California

The Campaign for College Opportunity has presented this report to the BOT. The report identifies a number of issues complicating the transfer process of students from California Community Colleges.

Senator Schutte’s note on ASCSU EO1100 resolution

[The following is some background Senator Schutte promised to send to the Senate after last Thursday’s meeting. He’s given me his permission to share it here]

The Back Story on the ASCSU Resolution Regarding EO 1100 and EO 1110 and its Ramification for the CSUN Review of its Resolution.

In our last Senate meeting, the “question was called” to vote on the then current motion to disregard implementation of EO 1100 and EO1110 (herein known as the “Orders”). This occurred before I had the opportunity to provide information on how the Statewide Resolution concerning these Orders was negotiated and passed. In light of that missed opportunity, I suggested I would distribute a written statement as to why the Statewide Senate did not pass the resolution for rescission and instead opted to pass a resolution to delay and analyze. The result can be gleaned from reading the Statewide Resolution (see statewide minutes, Adam’s Presidents blog or this URL). However, as your statewide senate representative, from whose committee (Fiscal and Governmental Affairs) the resolution was initiated and for which, as a member, I provided the outline for same, I would like to give you the rationale for why this resolution prevailed and the motion, similar to our CSUN senate’s motion to ignore, did not.

The premise on which FGA did not support the rescission resolution was two-fold. First, we felt that faculty needed a seat at the table in dialoguing about the Orders. Simply asking for a rescission and the resulting non-compliance, would have precluded that input. Second we, at FGA, who are charged with following communications between the CSU and Sacramento, understand that the CSU in general and the local campuses, in particular, are often looked at as obstreperous, causing (in particular) the Department of Finance to “tune out” when legitimate requests are forwarded (that is an actual quote from the higher education group at the DOF). Simply ignoring these Orders would have only provided further support for their position. That said, FGA did take exception with many issues presented in the Orders and debated them for several hours. Let me articulate why, as a result, I suggested my reactions to them be incorporated and how that translated into the resolves contained in our resolution.

First, we universally took issue with the timing and lack of consultation for these Orders. The stated rationale was 1) the Chancellor’s Office perception that there was a time constraint issued by the Legislature, and 2) as a result, it required the distribution of these Orders during the summer when faculty were gone. The former was rationalized by the CO in quoting the 2017 Budget Act (AB 97, section 6610.001, 1.4), passed by the Legislature and articulating the need for policy changes by May 2018. The latter was rationalized by the CO’s premise that HEERA (Higher Education Employee-Employer Relations Act) obviates the requirement to consult with faculty on curriculum issues, although they may still voluntarily consult.

Ignoring these two issues by simply saying “no” to their Order’s implementation would prevent us from taking a stand on the underlying CO perceptions. For example, while AB97 does ask for “changes in policy” by May 2018, it does not ask for curriculum changes to be in place by the next academic year. Therefore, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to spend the next year formulating the policy between faculty and the CO, in time to meet the demands of AB97, while not implementing those agreed upon changes until the fall, 2019, which would then give departments time to process any agreed-upon changes. Moreover, while it is the case that the “scope of representation” found in HEERA, section 3562 (2.r.1.C) excludes a meet and confer obligation if the content involves “…the conduct of courses, curricula, and research programs”, it is also true that the Government Code Title I Division 4, Chapter 10, Myers-Milias-Brown Act, Section 3504 (governing public employees) defines the scope of representation to include “…all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations”. Moreover, the Constitution of the Academic Senate of the CSU (ratified by the Chancellor) calls for the Academic Senate “…..to be the formal policy-recommending body on systemwide academic…..matters”. Clearly, the debate on this issue needs to be vetted. These Orders are the time and venue in which to do so. Simply dismissing them out of hand precludes this opportunity.

Second, is the issue of costs and resource allocation. While the CO advocates the necessary to “standardize” G.E. requirements, units, coded categories, and pre-requisites, so that seamless transfers between campuses may occur, it is nevertheless the case that each campus has different necessities and requirements. Moreover, far less than 1% of students actually transfer once admitted. That said, and truth be known, it was the Legislative Analyst’s Office when testifying at the Senate and Assembly Higher Education Committee hearings in April, who told them (I am paraphrasing here) “The CSU does not need $75 million for G.I. 2025. Their greatest impediment to increasing graduating rates is their emphasis on remediation courses and the number of freshmen that are being placed in them. The ELM and EPT do not predict academic success in subsequent coursework and using them to place students is suppressing graduation rates. Therefore, we recommend the CSU abandon them, substituting multiple measures as predictors and place students directly into credit enabling courses”. Given that resounding vote of no confidence for GI 2025, by the LAO, it is nothing short of a miracle that the Legislature increased Gov. Browns allocation to the CSU by some $37 million. You may see the exact language the LAO used by simply reading the text in AB97, Section 6610.001 1.4. It was taken almost verbatim from the hearings. That said, to defend against being railroaded, this is the time and these are the Orders that deserve data-driven evaluation, not executive proclamation. I suggest that in exchange for critical dialogue about us supporting their implementation, we can effect their support for an evaluation of these Orders, such that it will not only serve us in vetting this implementation but set the rules for doing so whenever future EO’s are forwarded.

Third, and related to any evaluation is the issue of “unintended consequences”. So often public policy is passed with the best of intentions but with no understanding of the latent dysfunctions or consequences. For example, Proposition 47, in releasing non-violent prisoners in California, intended to reduce the prison population and increase the participation in drug rehabilitation, yet in the two years since its implementation, it has achieved the opposite. It turns out,releasing drug-related convicts does not ensure they will participate in “voluntary” drug rehabilitation.

A similar fallacy is true in these Orders. Causing a student to “bypass” a remediation course does not, despite added funds for tutoring, mean the grad rates will rise. Quite the contrary, it may be the case that DFUs will increase dramatically, causing more repeated classes or dropouts and thereby decrease grad rates. Moreover, to the extent Cultural Studies coursework is systematically uncoupled (from section F) and scattered throughout the G.E. categories, while potentially increasing FTES for these courses, may have the unintended consequence of dismantling the identify fostered through the Cultural Studies Departments who evolved these courses. It is not the FTES or unit completion that matters but the identity of clustering those units that is the issue. We are trying to foster grad rates. One of the biggest correlates of student success in graduating is the sense of community and identification with the campus. Having run the campus climate survey for the past three years, it is evident that underrepresented minorities feel less connected to campus. Therefore, is it any wonder they have lower overall graduation rates? How is the declustering of courses that represent a student’s identity going to function to promote a sense of community and, therefore, increase grad rates? That said, by having a voice at the table, examining resources and costs, while collecting data, and reminding them of the history of our section F, we will have the opportunity to demonstrate the insanity of dismantling student identity with Cultural Studies defined courses.

These are among the reasons Academic Affairs, the committee that had penned the Resolution calling for rescission, deferred to FGA and supported our resolution which was ultimately passed unanimously, but for one abstention. I think we would do well (to use a legal metaphor) to consider the merits of arguing our case rather than to not show up for the hearing. I have had some degree of success in swaying AVCs Blanchard and CFO Relyea on other issues and believe much progress on all manner of generic fronts could be made in negotiating with them, using these Orders as the stimulus context. I hope you agree and modify your vote at the next Senate hearing.

Respectfully,
Jerry Schutte, Professor
CSUN Statewide Academic Senator

To Hell in a Handbasket: GE and Other Fiascos

[The following is a commentary by Professor (nee Provost) Harry Hellenbrand]

To Hell in a Handbasket: GE and Other Fiascos

IS THERE A THERE, THERE?

Since the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) published its first “declaration of principles” in 1915, it has been generally understood that, in a university as opposed to a proprietary school, faculty have primacy over academic matters because of their expertise.1 This primacy, of course, is not exclusive. Legislators, trustees, and the administration share in the governance of academic matters. But if faculty consistently lose the last word on major academic matters, the university forfeits its ethical, if not technical, status as a university.2

The California State University (CSU) is far down the road to such forfeiture. (This argument applies to many public universities.)3 Faculty on term-limited appointments far outnumber the tenured and tenure-track faculty.4 By and large, contingent faculty are managed in ways that the tenured and tenure-track are not. They are hired to teach specific courses in specific ways. Often, they have little say in designing the curriculum. Their academic freedom is limited.

But then, how much self-determination do the tenured and tenure-track have as a faculty? Many of the courses that they teach must conform to the transfer templates for general education (GE) and for the major. These templates prescribe 50% of the courses for a baccalaureate degree. Pre- professional accreditations prescribe many of the other courses that tenured and tenure-track faculty teach. Perhaps no more than 25% of all courses express local faculty’s creation of a body of knowledge. Standardization has become the norm, as the CSU system has become more like a chain of franchises. It packages uniform skills for markets that determine those skills. In turn, the tenured and tenure-track faculty become more like the contingent faculty whom they help to manage.

COMPLIANCE SHERIFF

As faculty authority withers, campus self-rule in a system decreases. Central management moves in. In public comprehensive systems, central management tends to govern by enforcing compliance with a standard. Think, for instance, about the brouhaha that mods to PeopleSoft raised. Why is this so? Uniform practices eliminate the need to negotiate differences. Think of conversion from quarters to semesters. They provide administrators with a common denominator for decision-making.

Executive Order 1071 on tracks, emphases, and concentrations is an example of compliance thinking.5 It is a small beachhead in the current invasion into faculty and campus rights and responsibilities. Now, a specialization in a major cannot exceed 50% of the total credits in that major. There was no such rule previously. If its size persists, it must be presented as an entirely new program. The language that explains this change is revealing. A campus/president must get a “Chancellor’s certificate of compliance” with the new 50% rule before acting on specializations, tracks, and etc. This rule is necessary to meet “CSU policy and applicable law.” Without the rule, CSU will not conform to “reporting” standards in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the federal collection of higher education data.

These claims are mistaken. CSU policy (excepting this policy!) does not require such a rule. No federal or state law requires the campus rule. IPEDS warns that users should not view its data as “regulatory.” IPEDS leaves the definitions of emphasis, concentration, specialization, and etc., to the campuses.6

I am sure that CSU did not set out to misuse IPEDS. But it has. Now, I am not arguing against the sense of the rule; I am arguing against the way in which the rule was established. If the consultation with campuses claimed that law and reporting required this change, then the discussion was flawed. The thinking behind the rule also misunderstands how data should be used. Reporting requirements are more important than academic practices, the Executive Order implies. That implication does not bode well for relations between faculty and staff on the campuses and administrators in the Chancellor’s Office (CO).

MISSION

Frequently, rule-makers in central offices in higher education ignore the “loosely coupled” structure of university systems.7 In the CSU, campus mission statements respond mainly to region. That is why California State University, Northridge (CSUN) developed and the CSU approved (2005) area F (cross-cultural studies) in its GE program. The CO recently struck that category, however. It allegedly impedes student transfer from and to other campuses, especially within the CSU.

However, few students transfers from and to other CSUs.8 If there is a record of such complaints at CSUN, faculty were not told. Also, there is no obvious history of such complaints for transfers from the community colleges. The CSU Academic Senate does report that a student complained to a legislator about differing CSU requirements in GE.9 Shortly after that, Coded Memorandum 2016-19 asked that the campuses report requirements in GE that were in addition to A-E.10 That probably was when F was targeted. Sensitiveness to legislators’ complaints ignited this call for compliance in the CO. Complaints by a legislator often trump campus governance.

CONSULTATION

The CO could have consulted with CSUN before killing the category. Even if only a few students were affected, the few matter. No such communication occurred. This is unfortunate. There are many solutions that can preserve campus GE and mission, if indeed there is a problem. They all turn on the same strategy: put the student first. If a student transfers in with area F incomplete, evaluate that student by applying the GE scheme (CSU GE Breadth, IGETC, CSUN, or host/target campus) that is most favorable to the student.

The solution should be proportional to the problem. If 500 students are inconvenienced each term, then data justify a reconfiguration of CSUN GE. If 50 out of 4,000 transfers each term are affected (@1%), remedy but not reconfiguration is called for.

THE THRILLS AND SPILLS OF BASIC SKILLS

Inadequate consultation already has caused big problems in revamping CSU entry requirements and courses in basic composition and math in GE (Executive Order 1100). The Academic Senate is trying to stop the train, due to inadequate consultation.11 Consultation between the CO, the CSU Academic, the Senate’s GE Task Force (GETF), and the General Education Advisory Committee (GEAC) was adequate until spring, 2017. Then, GEAC asked the CO to extend the time for feedback on the emerging executive orders.12 Instead, the presidents were asked for their opinions on May 16, just as faculty were de-camping. The Executive Order was issued on August 23, just before faculty returned.13 But The GE committees had not yet made a recommendation to the Senate. The Senate had not yet consulted widely. It had not yet voted. It looks like the CO was avoiding having to make a data-based argument and conduct a campaign to win faculty’s hearts and minds.

That is too bad. There is research to justify the change.14 CSU must have supportive data, although the CSU Outcomes Report in 2016 did not make this recommendation.15 Nor did the “Quantitative Reasoning Task Force.”16 And you cannot get “there” from any of the reports on Early Start.17 The CO has not shown that its solution is proportional to the problem.

What is the alleged problem?

The problem with the current approach to remediation seems to be that it does not eliminate “equity gaps.”18 It delays the graduation and, in many cases, discourages the continuation of the very students that the graduation rate project is supposed to help. It is not entirely clear, however, that this is the case.19 But let’s assume it is. We then must ask whether the CSU is equipped to assume accountability for ending gaps that have been caused by the preceding twelve years of education, as well as by ongoing social inequity? Can the CSU reasonably be expected to make up for gaps in a multi-leveled educational system that funds the education of a graduate student in the University of California (UC) at many times the rate that it funds a K-12 pupil in Southwest LA? Are we confident that by retailoring remediation in the extreme, we are not opening other gaps inadvertently? We do not need a full answer now. But we do need a testable theory, methodology, and evidence plan to build confidence in the proposed changes.

The CO implies that there will be committees to develop something like this (Executive Order 1110).20 But how will that be done before fall, 2018? In fact, the entire timeline is too compressed. The C0 says that “implementation” begins in 2018, with the introduction of new or modified courses.21 That ignores all the background changes that must be implemented beforehand. By my clock, we already are two years behind. If programs require something like the “Chancellor’s certificate of compliance” in 1071, the time can be much longer.

How are faculty to configure new courses before the CSU develops and publicizes new placement standards? These changes will take . . . how long? And how will these standards tie into Common Core in the schools?22 Is the California Department of Education (CDoE) on board, so that our multiple measures correspond with theirs? Do we plan to continue co- programming with K-12 in the junior and senior years? Will all this be worked out before fall, 2018? How long will these considerations take?

I am concerned particularly about the fate of the lecturers, who work so diligently in remediation/ developmental courses. When we dissolve developmental courses and attach pieces of them to credit-bearing courses that fulfill GE, we affect employment. Unless we are thoughtful (and consult with CFA, too), we might craft courses—and thereby job descriptions— that freeze out many of the lecturers inadvertently. Will entitlements be wiped out or carried over? This transition must be done carefully; it cannot be done hastily. And it must be down after we know what the curriculum changes are and, of course, sufficiently before we advertise for, (re)hire, and (re)train faculty.

How will budgets be accounted for? CSU spends over $60,000,000 on remediation.23 Do we project these funds staying in basic skills? Planners need to know before they craft a different curriculum. Are campuses prepared for the Klondike onslaught of new claim-diggers in math?

WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH GE?
  1. The CSU should approach the revamping of GE as a massive change project.24
  2. The CO and the Academic Senate should appoint several “eminence grise” (previousfaculty trustees, retired presidents) who can serve as advisors on process.
  3. The parties should agree on a route through governance for reviewing related proposals.
  4. The CO should prepare a data-based argument; it ought to request other groups, like the Quantitative Reasoning Task Force, to present their data and reasoning.
  5. The CO should make public any outcomes projections and methodologies.
  6. The CO should explain the ties to Common Core, Smarter Balance, and the junior and senior years.
  7. The CO should consider a phase-in that begins, say, with treatments of students, as cohorts, in the junior year in high school.
  8. The CO should begin to identify labor issues and solutions.
  9. The parties must agree on a reasonable time.
  10. The CO, GEAC, and GETF must identify a logical sequence for setting entry qualifications, course perquisites and content, outcomes, and assessment as a feedback loop.
  11. At the appropriate time, before submitting proposals for review, the CO and campuses will account for existing costs and projected costs.
    Notes

1 The Redbook, https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/RedBook%20Contents.pdf.
2 In particular, see the AAUP resolution in support of faculty control of the curriculum under similar circumstances in 2013, https://www.aaup.org/resolution-support-faculty-control-curriculum-city-university-new-york.
3 See for detail How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low-Wage Nation.
4 See Human Resources for 2015 in Statistical Tables in IPEDS, https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Statistics.aspx.
5 See Executive Orders in CSU, https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1071-rev-1-20-17.html.
6 Introduction to the Classification of Educational Programs, https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/Files/Introduction_CIP2010.pdf.
7 Weick, Karl, “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 (1976), 1-9.
8 See Table 28.13 on transfers in Academic Reports, Analytic Studies, CSU, http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2016-2017/rfnse28.htm.
9 See for December, 2016, http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Newsletter/December_2016/resolution_summaries.shtml.
10 https://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/codedMemos/ASA-2016-19.pdf an

11 See https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1100-rev-8-23-17.html; and the Academic Senate’s resolution at http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Records/Resolutions/2017-2018/Documents/3304.shtml.
12 GEAC minutes, http://www.calstate.edu/app/geac/documents/2017/GEAC-March-2017-Minutes.pdf.
13 See the Coded Memorandum for May 16, 2017, http://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/codedMemos/ASA-2017- 14.pdf. And see the Executive Order, https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1100-rev-8-23-17.html.

14 For instance, see The Campaign for College Opportunity at http://collegecampaign.org/remedial-education- redesign/ ; and Carnegie Math Pathways, https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/in-action/carnegie-math- pathways/. See, too, Gleason, Barbara, “Remediation Phase-Out at CUNY: The ‘Equity versus Excellence’ Controversy,” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 51, #3 (February, 2000), 488-91.

15 See, for example, the regressions in CSU Outcomes Report (2016), 28ff, http://asd.calstate.edu/doc/CSU- Undergraduate-Outcomes-Report_FINAL.pdf.
16 http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Records/Resolutions/2016-2017/documents/3265.shtml.
17 http://www.calstate.edu/acadaff/earlystart/index.shtml.

18 See the Coded Memorandum, May 16, http://asd.calstate.edu/doc/CSU-Undergraduate-Outcomes- Report_FINAL.pdf.
19 The CSU Outcome Report, 11-13, shows similar graduation rates for black and white students who enter CSUN, needing remediation.
20 https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1110.html.
21 See previous reference to Executive Order 1110.
22 http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/.
23 Derived from “Overview of Remediation at the States’ Higher Education Segments,” (Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst’s Office, March 1, 2017), 6, http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/education/2017/Overview-Remedial- Education-State-Public-Higher-Education-Segments-030117.pdf.
24 See, for instance, Kotter, John P., Leading Change (Cambridge: Harvard Business School, 2002).

EO1100 resolutions media coverage

Here’s an article in the LA Times discussing the Statewide Academic Senate resolution (AS-3304) which calls for EO1100 (revised) and EO 1110 to be put in abeyance and the implementation deadline be extended to Fall 2019:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-cal-state-trustees-meeting-20170919-story.html

Here’s another article in EdSource:

https://edsource.org/2017/csu-faculty-rebel-against-changes-in-remedial-and-math-education-calls-for-delay/587650

I’m glad that the LA Times article picked up on this part

That fact that administrators were moving so fast, the resolution said, suggested that they are “more attuned to the pressures of outside forces than to the needs of its students and continuing faculty efforts to meet those needs.”

That’s the real issue with all this. Well-meaning state officials pressure the Chancellor’s Office. They could politely respond

We trust our campus faculty to design curricula which meet the needs of local employers and reflect the campus and community’s values and needs. California is a big state; artificial uniformity is superficially attractive but risks lasting harm to the state and its workforce.

But instead they make broad and sweeping changes to the entire system in order to demonstrate good faith progress on these officials’ well-meaning, but naive priorities.

That’s the calculus we must find a way to change.

EO1100: Alternatives

We will probably need to be able to offer alternatives to the revised EO1100.

Update: Our task in (2) will be helped if we can proffer potential compromises which promote the CO’s desire for uniformity. I will try to capture these here:

For example, the CSU Ethnic Studies Task Force acknowledged CSUN’s leadership in institutionalizing support for ethnic studies. Thus a plausible alternative would build CSUN’s model into the systemwide requirements.

 

Executive Order 1100 undermines cultural competency education at CSUN

The Chancellors Office has ordered changes to general education which eviscerate ethnic studies, gender and women’s studies, queer studies, and others at CSUN.

In an attempt to standardize general education across the CSU and prevent students who transfer between campuses from having to take extra units, Loren Blanchard has mandated changes in how many units may be in each area of GE (and the distribution of units between upper and lower division). This will harm our students and have far reaching effects on our curriculum. One of the most egregious is that while CSUN has been unique in the CSU by requiring cultural studies as part of GE (part F) for ~12 years, that is no longer allowed.

I will use this space for further explanations and updates. There will likely be many. I expect that Executive Order 1100 will eat up all the time, energy, and goodwill that would’ve been devoted to the Graduation Initiative 2025.

For now, we have three tasks before us:

(1) Figuring out how to minimize the harm in implementing this travesty

(2) Fighting political battles to have the order reversed or revised.

(3) Ensuring that Chancellor Timothy White, Executive Vice Chancellor Loren Blanchard, and Strategist James T. Minor never escape the stain of the losses they have inflicted on the future students of CSUN, their communities, and their employers.

In service of (3), let me close by sharing the brief note I sent to Loren Blanchard last night.

To: Loren Blanchard, Executive Vice Chancellor
CC: Tim White, Chancellor

Dear Loren,

The revisions to EO 1100 eviscerate CSUN’s ethnic studies departments.

I leave it to my administrative colleagues to demonstrate this.

After working throughout the day to understand the implications and the options, I am embarrassed that I can contribute only what, through the shock, is, I suppose, a broken heart.

I will do my utmost to stanch the bleeding. But please know that my task is to find a way to preserve within an already crowded structure that which was won inch by inch.

Thank you,

Adam

—
Adam Swenson, Ph.D.
Faculty President

 

======

Update: I will try to keep track of what I hear from other campuses here: https://blogs.csun.edu/facultypresident/2017/08/25/executive-order-1100-not-just-us/

=======
Update [30 August]: It appears President Harrison and Provost Li have worked out an agreement with the Chancellor’s Office which remedies the horrible implications of EO1100 for the affected departments. https://blogs.csun.edu/facultypresident/2017/08/31/eo1100-update/

EO1110

As you’ve probably heard, the CSU has tired of waiting for K-12* to give us college-ready students and has decided to do something bold:

LJB to Presidents cover memo EO

1110EO 1110 Academic Preparation

If you don’t feel like reading / listening to interviews with CO folks about this, here are the answers they will find ways to give to any question**:

academic-preparation-faq

There are a ton of good commentaries floating around. Here’s one which makes several excellent points (and some bad ones) from the San Diego Union Tribune

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-csu-dropping-remedial-classes-20170804-story.html

Indeed, this paragraph at the end could’ve been written by pretty much any ASCSU Senator:

All this means there are reasons for optimism about CSU’s gamble. But it could just as easily put the nation’s largest four-year university system — with 23 campuses and 470,000-plus students — on the road toward the mindset seen in some California school districts, which put more emphasis on graduation rates than on having a high-school degree being a genuine accomplishment. That would be a painful irony — CSU adopting the public-relations-first tactics of California public schools in response to problems partly caused by such tactics.

This must not happen.

For my own part, I’ll just say that it’s nice to hear our friends at the Chancellor’s Office express such confidence in the magic-working powers of CSU faculty. To be sure, if anyone can figure out how to get students ready for the curriculum they are taking as they take it, CSU math and writing faculty can.

It has, however, been a long time since magic has been fully funded….

———

* I guess we’ve also given up on reminding the state that this was supposed to be the community colleges’ job.

** FWIW, I don’t mean that as a complaint. I’m open to the possibility that the norms guiding mass communication are not the same as the norms guiding conversations (e.g., in a face-to-face conversation, you are a jerk if you ignore your interlocutor’s questions; we shouldn’t make the same judgment about the character of the interviewee who stays on message).

Board of Trustees: EVC Blanchard on GI2015

[For those who weren’t able to enjoy the spectacle and pageantry of this week’s BOT meeting, I’m posting some  important items.]

Here’s the report Executive Vice Chancellor Blanchard (basically the CSU Provost) read verbatim to the Board’s educational policy committee about GI2025:

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY Graduation Initiative 2025

Presentation By

Loren J. Blanchard
 Executive Vice Chancellor Academic and Student Affairs

Summary

Graduation Initiative 2025 is the California State University’s (CSU) signature effort aimed at increasing degree completion rates and eliminating equity gaps, thereby ensuring student success and meeting the future workforce needs of the State of California. This report is designed to provide an update on the work underway at the system-level to achieve the Graduation Initiative 2025 goals.

Background

At the January 2017 Board of Trustees meeting, Chancellor White outlined five priority areas where focus is needed to achieve the Graduation Initiative 2025 goals: academic preparation, enrollment management, financial aid, data-driven decision making and administrative barriers. Based on feedback received from campus constituents, “student engagement and wellbeing” has been added as a sixth focus area. The following represents the CSU’s aspirational goals with respect to each of these areas of focus:

  1. Academic preparation: We will provide CSU students, including those who arrive academically underprepared, the opportunity and support needed to complete 30 college- level semester units—45 quarter units—before beginning their second academic year. 

  2. Enrollment management: We will ensure students are able to enroll in the courses they need, when they need them. 

  3. Student engagement and wellbeing: We will continue to address the wellbeing of all CSU students while fostering a strong sense of belongingness on campus. 

  4. Financial aid: We will ensure that financial need does not impede student success. 

  5. Data-driven decision making: We will use evidence and data to identify and advance the 
most successful academic support programs. 

  6. Administrative barriers: We will identify and remove unnecessary administrative 
 


At the March 2017 Board of Trustees meeting, the board received a presentation regarding a new approach to academic preparation intended to improve college readiness for all students. This approach includes promoting four years of high school mathematics/quantitative reasoning, improving placement and assessment, strengthening the Early Start Program and restructuring developmental education.

Priority Area Workgroups

Cross-representational workgroups are being created for each of the six priority areas of Graduation Initiative 2025 to provide policy and implementation guidance. Campus presidents, Academic Senate CSU Chair Dr. Christine Miller and California State Student Association (CSSA) President Mr. David Lopez were asked to nominate individuals to serve on each of the six workgroups. Members of the Academic and Student Affairs leadership team will staff each workgroup. The workgroup rosters will be finalized at the end of May. They will convene for approximately one year, meeting in-person quarterly and virtually several times throughout the year.

Update on Academic Preparation

Staff from the Chancellor’s Office has been consulting with a number of campus groups regarding academic preparation. Consultations have included campus presidents, provosts, vice presidents for student affairs, the Academic Senate of the CSU, the California Department of Education, the Math Council, the English Council and the General Education Advisory Committee, among others.

The feedback received from this consultative process was incorporated into a draft executive order, released in May. The Chancellor’s Office is currently soliciting a second round of feedback that will be used to draft the final policy, reflecting the collective advice of experts from around the system.

Financial Aid

More than 60 percent of all CSU students have their tuition fully covered by non-loan aid. As part of Graduation Initiative 2025, we are thinking about financial aid in two ways – as a support and as a potential incentive. For example, campuses are using their share of the $35 million in one- time funding to provide students with micro-grants and emergency loans to assist students who are on track to graduate but who face financial shortfalls that impede their path to a college degree.

Another strategy being implemented by campuses is increasing students’ financial literacy by providing information on the benefits of graduating a year—or a term—early. Students who graduate one semester early save more than $4,000 in tuition, fees, books and supplies. By ensuring students are aware of the potential cost savings, the CSU can help students make informed decisions when planning their course schedules. Some CSU campuses have already begun to incorporate this type of information into regular communication with their students.

Ed. Pol. Agenda Item 1 May 23-24, 2017 Page 3 of 3

The financial aid workgroup that is convening this summer will be exploring these topics and others in depth and making systemwide policy recommendations.

Year-Round Pell Grants

Restoring year-round Pell Grants has been one of the CSU’s top legislative priorities. In 2015-16, 52 percent of undergraduate students received Pell Grants. These grants help make college possible for thousands of CSU students, many of whom are from historically underserved communities. As such, a robust, flexible Pell program is critical to achieving the Graduation Initiative 2025 goals. By enabling students to complete coursework in the summer and providing flexibility for part-time students, year-round Pell leads to faster degree completion and increases the likelihood of on-time graduation.

In February 2017, Chancellor White joined Dr. Nancy L. Zimpher, chancellor of The State University of New York, in Washington, D.C. to advocate for the restoration of year-round Pell Grants. In April, the chancellor, trustees, presidents, Academic Senate of the CSU chair and CSSA travelled to Washington, D.C. for meetings with legislators and the administration about the importance of year-round Pell Grants.

The CSU’s leadership and sustained efforts on this issue have made a significant difference. As part of the omnibus bill for the current 2017 fiscal year, Senate appropriators restored year-round Pell Grant eligibility. Thousands of CSU students are expected to qualify, beginning summer 2018.

Campus Allocations to Support Graduation Initiative 2025

Funding is being allocated to all 23 campuses to support their Graduation Initiative 2025 work. For 2017-18, $75 million will be allocated to campuses in accordance with the board-approved tuition increase. Each campus will use its share of the funds to support its individual graduation initiative plan, including systemwide priorities of increased faculty hiring, offering additional high-demand course sections and providing additional academic and student support services such as advising, mentoring, tutoring and other supplemental instruction.

Separate from the $75 million, the Chancellor’s Office will begin providing additional resources to campuses in summer 2017 to support instructional innovations related to academic preparation. This includes approximately $10 million in reallocated funding to support faculty, academic departments and student affairs staff to enhance curriculum and instruction, improve data capacity and provide additional financial support for students.